Hope for peace in the Middle East?

After Annapolis. Whenever a new peace initiative is launched in the Middle East, the pessimists usually turn out to be right. Will history repeat itself following the Annapolis Conference?

This time, all the issues will be up for discussion. With the US President and Secretary of State as hosts, and surrounded by ministers from about 50 countries, the Palestinian President and Israeli Prime Minister committed themselves to starting negotiations on all outstanding issues. Nothing less. They pledged to make every effort to conclude a peace settlement by the end of 2008.

This means that there is now agreement on holding the first open negotiations between the parties since 2001. The outstanding issues remain the same, namely all questions of final status,  as well as all that is required to establish an independent Palestinian state. The current picture is not that different from the time President Clinton was forced to concede, right at the end of his presidency, that agreement was impossible. 

After several years of standstill, the Americans are now once again fully involved in the peace process. President Bush made it quite plain that the US will do everything in  its power to support the quest for peace. The main actor is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who worked hard to make Annapolis happen, and who will devote much of her time to following the negotiations and supporting their progress.

This is the reality of the situation: the involvement of the US is essential. In the closing lines of the Joint Statement, the Quartet (the US, the EU, Russia and the UN) is not even mentioned. The US is the prime mover and the adjudicator; according to the Joint Statement it is the US that will “monitor and judge” the parties’ fulfilment of their commitment under the road map.

The Arab states were present at Annapolis. This is of great significance. The Arab Peace Initiative from 2002 forms the backdrop for the continued peace process. The participation of Syria and Lebanon further highlights the need to resolve the two remaining conflicts in the region: between Israel and Syria on the one hand, and between Israel and Lebanon, on the other. 

But Annapolis was primarily about Israel and the Palestinian Territory. The outstanding issues here are demanding, and the Palestinian situation is no less so.

Firstly, the Palestinian people are divided. President Abbas will face the daunting task of selling what will inevitably be a compromise to a divided people. Hamas remains outside the process and does not acknowledge any responsibility. This is where the Palestinian Unity Government formed in March 2007 could have provided a different starting point, had it survived internal tensions and pressure from outside, because it united the Palestinian groups in a common endeavour.  

But this was not to be, and Hamas must bear much of the responsibility. This means that courageous leaders will once again have to seek out the path to reconciliation on the Palestinian side, and then it will be vital for major international actors to show that they are able and willing to have dealings with the Palestinians.

Secondly, Israeli leaders are walking a tightrope. In Israel, too, difficult compromises have to be sold to the people: settlements have to be dismantled, occupied land handed back, and the Palestinians must regain access to their part of Jerusalem. And where will returning Palestinian refugees be able to find a home?  These issues raise fundamental questions about Palestinian rights vis-à-vis the state of Israel, and about Israeli leaders’ notions of Israeli identity.

Thirdly, Iran was absent, but nevertheless its presence was palpable at Annapolis. The uneasiness over the country’s politics, actions and increased influence in the Middle East is creating evidence of a growing community of interest between Israel and the Arab states. But to what extent will this advance the cause of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

Fourthly, it is widely acknowledged that continued conflict will draw the Palestinians into an even deeper financial and social crisis. At the same time, we are seeing how this downward spiral in turn exacerbates the conflict. The Palestinian Authority is in danger of collapse. This not only affects the Palestinian people; it also affects the prospects for peace. It is significant that the US is now preparing to provide aid, including direct budget support. Norway chairs the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) of donor countries. On 17 December, Quartet Representative for the Middle East Tony Blair and the European Commission will lead a Donor Conference in Paris, hosted by France. I have no doubt that if peace comes, the Palestinians will quickly build up their own economy and will no longer require assistance, but we have not yet reached that point.

The main aim of the Paris Conference is to mobilise donors to provide budget support for the Palestinian Authority, as well as support for private sector projects and initiatives. However, this in itself is not enough; it is also essential for the Palestinian economy that the Israeli regime of blockades is lifted. Without access to – and free movement within – the Palestinian Territory, there will be no economic growth.

Finally, the US will play a key role. The biggest challenge for the US will be to strike a balance between parties with an asymmetrical power relationship. Both pressure and encouragement must be used as methods of buttressing painful compromises on both sides. This will be difficult for the US, too.

The Palestinians are probably the ones with the greatest sense of disquiet. They know how strong the bonds are between Israel and the US. All the same, they heard a US Secretary of State end the Annapolis Conference by referring to her own formative experiences growing up as an African American and minority in the South of the US, where social exclusion and oppression were commonplace.

Norway played the role of facilitator during the Oslo Process in the early 1990s. Now, the parties are participating in direct, open dialogue, and it is a long time since they had a need for secret channels. Norway continues to play an important role today – among other things as chair of the ADLC.

We have managed to revitalise the work of this group. We are also glad to see that it is now so widely acknowledged that there can be no peace without real improvements in living conditions and institutional capacity in the Palestinian Territory, including Gaza. This standpoint has always been central to Norway’s approach, and it will continue to be so.

Annapolis marked the start of a new attempt to find a peaceful solution. This will not be easy. The parties have primary responsibility, but all of us who were present must also do what we can. Norway will remain committed to the efforts to find a fair and just solution to the conflict. With this in view, we will maintain contact with the parties, keep up our dialogue with the US, and draw on our broad network of contacts throughout the Middle East.

We are a steadfast supporter of a solution that will give the Palestinians their own state, and the Israelis and Palestinians the peace and security they deserve.